On 2006-11-27 23:52, Kyle Moffett wrote: > Actually, our current /dev/random implementation is secure even if the > cryptographic algorithms can be broken under traditional circumstances.
This is far from obvious, and in my opinion incorrect. David explained this very well in his follow-up. Other pertinent references are Gutterman Pinkas Reinman '06 [1], Barak and Halevi '05 [2, Section 5.1], and the "/dev/random is probably not" thread [3]. The current algorithm is probably OK for casual users in normal circumstances, but advertising it as absolutely secure is dangerously misleading. Eran [1] http://www.gutterman.net/publications/GuttermanPinkasReinman2006.pdf [2] http://eprint.iacr.org/2005/029 [3] http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg04215.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
